I have modified some claims
below at the suggestion of TC participants.
Thanks to all who made
suggestions.
1. For OASIS:
"Despite the two negative
votes on nontechnical issues,
the OASIS ebXML CPPA TC
agrees that their specification,
Collaboration-Protocol
Profile and Agreement Specification
Version 2.0, should become
an OASIS Standard."
2. Comment response. Should we send this to the organization's representative? Should anything else be done with it?
From http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-voting/200210/msg00046.html
Comment: LMI views with significant concern the
actions of IBM with respect to IP claims on the CPPA specification.
IBM publicly stated that the IBM TPA was being transferred unencumbered
to ebXML. IBM's subsequent claim of
IP rights and associated requirements casts a serious pall over their dealings
with ebXML and the viability of that initiative, and is not in keeping with the
spirit and intent of ebXML.
Unfortunately, the ebXML CPPA Technical Committee has not adequately
addressed this issue prior to submitting the specification for consideration as
an OASIS standard. Further, OASIS
has not properly resolved this issue in accordance with their responsibility to
membership to promote OASIS standards that are unencumbered by IP claims. LMI regretfully votes against this much
needed specification and will continue to do so until such time as either IBM
has waived all IP claims, or the specification is reworked to remove the
possibility of any such IP claim.
Further, LMI will continue to vote against any other candidate OASIS
standard (such as what is being developed by the WSRP TC) in which IP claims are
involved. OASIS must be about free,
open, unencumbered public standards.
The OASIS
ebXML CPPA TC has taken no stance on the validity of claims found in
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml.
OASIS has not indicated that the IBM IPR statement does not conform with any
specific provision of its IPR policy found at
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.shtml. OASIS has not
indicated to the OASIS ebXML TC that its specification conflicts with any
provision of the OASIS IPR policy mentioned above. The OASIS
ebXML CPPA TC does not believe it is possible to revise its specification in
such a way that these claims, including one whose scope is unknown, and any as
yet undisclosed future patent claims affecting implementation of the
specification, could be avoided. The OASIS ebXML CPPA TC does not see that
it is within its power or charter to directly alter the IPR situation to which
you object.
From
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-voting/200210/msg00047.html
Comment:
The Department of the Navy (DON) vote of NAY on the ebXML CPPA specification is
specifically related to the pending IP claim by IBM. The DON is in the
process of adopting an open standards approach to XML implementation. Therefore,
OASIS TC specifications encumbered by IP claims, are a significant hindrance to
this approach.
The OASIS ebXML CPPA
TC has taken no stance on the validity of claims found in
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml.
OASIS has not indicated that the IBM IPR statement does not conform with any
specific provision of its IPR policy found at
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.shtml. OASIS has not
indicated to the OASIS ebXML TC that its specification conflicts with any
provision of the OASIS IPR policy mentioned above.
[The OASIS ebXML CPPA
TC would like to point out that an open source approach to implementation of the
freely available OASIS ebXML CPPA v 2.0 specification is explicitly endorsed in
the recent update to the IBM IPR statement at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml—one
comment is that open source APIs without the need to relicense may not be
relevant to an open standards approach. If so, we can delete this
sentence.]